Today I was fortunate to successfully argue for a remarkable sentence of “credit for time served” and 3 years probation for my client convicted of 21 U.S.C. 952, 960 (importation of cocaine.) In the sentencing memorandum I wrote on behalf of my client, I cited the First Step Act and its reference to the phrase “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that my client should not serve a substantial custodial sentence in jail (i.e. prison.) I like that phrase because it is a short and powerful way to draw attention to facts you want the judge to consider in exercising discretion in sentencing. Until 2005, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory which meant that federal criminal defense attorneys had very few ways to argue specific facts that warranted a lesser sentence for our clients. Thanks to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) the Federal Sentencing Guidelines eventually became “advisory” and the federal judges now have more discretion in sentencing to consider a sentence sufficient to promote respect for the law, but not greater than necessary, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct and to allow for rehabilitation including educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553. Many articles have been published which dissect the First Step Act recently championed by the Trump Administration. Practicing federal criminal defense attorneys, such as myself, are trying to figure out how it may apply to current clients. You may hear me using the phrase found in the First Step Act that “ we submit that my
